Senate Vote on UN Arms Trade Treaty

With a vote of 53-46 in the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure "to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."Here is a list of the 46 traitors that thought our 2nd Amendment isn't worth upholding, and Arewilling to hand it over to the UN. These traitors need to be unemployed come the next election.

With a vote of 53-46 in the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure "to upholdSecond Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United NationsArms Trade Treaty."Here is a list of the 46 traitors that thought our 2nd Amendment isn't worth upholding, and Arewilling to hand it over to the UN. These traitors need to be unemployed come the next election.Levin and Stabenow are on the list

Paranoid much? The treaty involves international arms trade. It would not affect your 2nd Amendment rights in any way:

<quoted text>I'm so sure because I did my due diligence and looked up information on the treaty. I didn't base my opinion on the paranoid fears of some people.

I looked at it too and for the moment it doesn't look like it affects the 2nd Amendment. However, my question is, will this treaty ever expand? Will it ever change or will something be added to it in the future that WOULD affect our rights? It's not fear that makes us question the treaty it's (you used the word) "diligence" that we keep our overall sovereignty. Don't want to be caught with your pants down, especially when there's a rattlesnake in the area.

<quoted text>I looked at it too and for the moment it doesn't look like it affects the 2nd Amendment. However, my question is, will this treaty ever expand? Will it ever change or will something be added to it in the future that WOULD affect our rights? It's not fear that makes us question the treaty it's (you used the word) "diligence" that we keep our overall sovereignty. Don't want to be caught with your pants down, especially when there's a rattlesnake in the area.

This is a blow to Russian arms makers, they thought they would corner the market. I wonder how many countries Russia has sold arms to so as to gain their support? Any way this doesn't follow the NAFTA...

This is a blow to Russian arms makers, they thought they would corner the market. I wonder how many countries Russia has sold arms to so as to gain their support? Any way this doesn't follow the NAFTA...

Actually, it is illegal and would mandate a US firearms registry system be put in place. Look it up, we have laws against that. It also "allows" firearm ownership for sporting, collecting, historical and culteral reasons. No where does it state self protection. The UN is a joke. Mark, do your homework...

Actually, it is illegal and would mandate a US firearms registry system be put in place. Look it up, we have laws against that. It also "allows" firearm ownership for sporting, collecting, historical and culteral reasons. No where does it state self protection. The UN is a joke. Mark, do your homework...

Actually, Jeff, I got my information from what the UN said about the treaty and what fact-checkers had to say about the claim that it would affect our 2nd Amendment rights. I did follow your suggestion, though, and looked up the text of the treaty. I'd like to quote some of the relevant parts of the treaty. From the Preamble:

"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system."

"Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law."

So, I can see why you put the word "allow" in quotes. That word is not a part of the statement you were referring to. I read that statement to mean that the UN is recognizing the 2nd Amendment rights, not allowing them.

Now, referring to the weapons covered in the treaty. Those are tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. Clearly, the purpose of the treaty is its stated purpose, to fight the illegal weapons trade. Small arms and light weapons is just one small part of what they're trying to get a handle on.

That firearms registry you claim it would require is just a figment of your imagination. The treaty doesn't call for the implementation of a firearms registry, what it calls for is a "National control system controlling the international trade of weapons, including a national control list in order to implement the provisions of the treaty."

What does that national control list cover? All of the weapons I mentioned above, plus the manufacturers of party for the weapons. That control list is not a registery of who owns guns, it involves the manufacturers of the weapons so that if they turn up in the possession of those who obtained them illegally, investigators will have a way of tracking how those weapons got in the hands of those peoples.

The bottom line, Jeff, is that this treaty is all about international weapons trade and not a gun-grabbing effort. It recognizes our laws and is not illegal in any way.

<quoted text>Really? You need me to come up with your information? It is in the law which is why the Senate slows things down....

No, I don't need you to come up with my information. I'm just not going to tilt at the windmills you want me to go after. I guess you've forgotten that it's impossible to prove a negative. You made a positive statement, that there have been treaties which have overruled our Constitution. It's simply an expectation in discussions that if you make a claim like that, you ought to be able to provide evidence to support your claim. You seem to be unwilling to provide that evidence. Apparently you want to just pull stuff out of some part of your anatomy and claim that is a fact without providing any evidence.

<quoted text>No, I don't need you to come up with my information. I'm just not going to tilt at the windmills you want me to go after. I guess you've forgotten that it's impossible to prove a negative. You made a positive statement, that there have been treaties which have overruled our Constitution. It's simply an expectation in discussions that if you make a claim like that, you ought to be able to provide evidence to support your claim. You seem to be unwilling to provide that evidence. Apparently you want to just pull stuff out of some part of your anatomy and claim that is a fact without providing any evidence.

Evidence? Your post contains plenty of evidence that you are arrogant and ignorant.

<quoted text>Evidence? Your post contains plenty of evidence that you are arrogant and ignorant.You are a buffoon.

Got it Sharon. You seem to be another one of those who believes they can say any damn thing they like without providing any evidence to support their contention. Having said that, I won't sink to your level and call you names. Have a nice day!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.